Is shit gonna burn tonight?
- Thread starter TAMU_Fan
- Start date
Guilty, not guilty, or hung jury, yes there will be fires.
So okay to raid homes and businesses, but you get a bullet to the head if you touch any Gov't buildings. Have fun!!
Other than the day after Thanksgiving, it will be the biggest shopping event of the year.
I’m not sure how any normal person could watch that video and think the actions of that officer were acceptable. We can debate all day long whether or not he’s guilty of murder (lots of variables) but at a minimum, he was incredibly overzealous and guilty of excessive force. Floyd lost his life as a result of Chauvins techniques. I don’t have an issue with the outcome here as tragic as it is for all parties involved.
I agree that there was poor technique, having never served as a police officer I can only try to think what it must feel like that every time you pull someone over for a random traffic stop or in this case a felony warrant, that you just don't know how the person is going to respond. My thoughts go to the question of, at what point do the actions of the criminal become the criminals fault?
Bottom line for me on this is, you couldn't pay me any amount of money to be an officer of the law today. I don't think they need to worry about defunding the Police.
- Dec 15, 2002
- 70,892
- 26,953
- 113
Media always convicts the cops before the trial, then the truth comes out and people riot. They incite riots all the time.
Chauvin was guilty. I’m a big police supporter.
If anybody riots, or loots, tonight; then in my opinion they are only hurting their own cause.
And the media had better behave themselves, appreciate that the justice system worked, and stop trying to flare up emotions of any group.
If anybody riots, or loots, tonight; then in my opinion they are only hurting their own cause.
And the media had better behave themselves, appreciate that the justice system worked, and stop trying to flare up emotions of any group.
"Marchers" are already climbing up and standing on cars in Minneapolis.
Just waiting on darkness.
Just waiting on the good deals at the local stores.
Just waiting on darkness.
Just waiting on the good deals at the local stores.
Well, it’ll just be a victory riot. Nothing to see here. Move along!
- Maxine
- Maxine
Chauvin most definitely used excessive force considering that he had three other cops able to help him subdue Floyd. However, this ruling is still very surprising in relation to Minny law. Add in the fact, for each charge, it had to known to be beyond reasonable doubt. If you watched the trial, there was plenty of reasonable doubt for the murder charges. Manslaughter is a definite.
Intelligent and reasonable minds can find areas of agreement and disagreement. From my perspective, culpability for the murder charge was easily proven. The problem wasn't the 9 minutes and 29 seconds, it was the almost 3 minutes when Floyd had no pulse and the restraint never changed, and no aid was rendered, and that was what convicted him. That's just depraved and demonstrates a complete disregard of the safety of someone in your charge. The video eliminated all reasonable doubt the first day of the trial. The testimony of the clinical experts only reinforced that. If anything, Nelson was in way over his head, failed to object when he should have, and was playing for a lesser charge if anything. I can't imagine going in to that trial with just him and not a team. That will be an element of the appeal. It bordered on malpractice. But again, opinions vary. This is only my opinion.
This mirrors my take. George Floyd was handcuffed, and not a threat at any point. He was having a meltdown because he was claustrophobic. There were any number of steps that could’ve been taken. Chauvin went far beyond what could be considered reasonable and the failure to render aid after Floyd was unresponsive sealed Chauvin’s fate. I think this verdict will stand-up under appeal. The other officers who failed to intervene to stop Chauvin are also at risk, given this verdict. Hopefully, the lesson will be learned for future police tactics. I’m a supporter of the police and have sympathies for the situations they face, but this wasn’t one involving a threat to the officers.
Nothing in the first half of your statement proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was murder. Either 2nd or 3rd. 2nd requires intent. 3rd doesn't really apply by the Minny wording of the law. Do you believe Chauvin intended to kill Floyd while he had him pinned?
There were plenty of expert witnesses that disagree with you too. I can't assume you watched the entire trail, but then again I don't blame you if you didn't [I did not, but I'd say about 85%], the first week were strictly witnesses (non-expert) that did nothing for the factual elements of the case. Just their emotions. It was nauseating.
Then the last two days were again, emotional witnesses, that offered nothing to the case. Minny has some weird trial laws.
Last edited:
Speak up if you’re a little giddy this trial ended up where you wanted because the threat of a riot undoubtedly influenced the jurors.
im sure this went unnoticed by potential future radicals and we can sleep easy knowing that it probably won’t ever happen again. What a great day for America.
The point that Nelson was in over his head attacking this solo is moot. I could argue Cahill presided over this case rather unfairly and displayed a lack of consistency in his ruling.
I'm young-ish, so this was my first major case to watch all the way through (excluding Casey Anthony) and it was a rather doozy. I have watched the OJ documentaries and know a bit about that trial. Although I will say that I don't think the Chauvin trial was as surprising as OJ.
Before this trial, I would say I'd mostly agree with the murder charges even with the ME's report but after watching numerous state witnesses contradict not only other state witnesses but also themselves, I was left with an ample amount of reasonable doubt.
I should add that being a structural engineer heavily affects my opinion. If one has ever studied building collapse cases, you'll notice that expert structural engineers that review the case never explicitly state that they know for certain what caused the collapse. Even with the consistency that is concrete and steel, load paths are forever a fickle bitch and therefore can cause unwanted results if not careful. More stringent codes have largely wiped out the possibility for brittle failures anyway so when a collapse does happen, it's difficult to ascertain why. Was it the design? Was it the construction? Was it poor material quality? This is usually why when this happens the architect sues the structural engineer and general contractor, the structural engineer sues the contractor, architect, and general contractor, and the general contractor sues everyone and their applicable subs. It gets... pretty hectic.
I'm young-ish, so this was my first major case to watch all the way through (excluding Casey Anthony) and it was a rather doozy. I have watched the OJ documentaries and know a bit about that trial. Although I will say that I don't think the Chauvin trial was as surprising as OJ.
Before this trial, I would say I'd mostly agree with the murder charges even with the ME's report but after watching numerous state witnesses contradict not only other state witnesses but also themselves, I was left with an ample amount of reasonable doubt.
I should add that being a structural engineer heavily affects my opinion. If one has ever studied building collapse cases, you'll notice that expert structural engineers that review the case never explicitly state that they know for certain what caused the collapse. Even with the consistency that is concrete and steel, load paths are forever a fickle bitch and therefore can cause unwanted results if not careful. More stringent codes have largely wiped out the possibility for brittle failures anyway so when a collapse does happen, it's difficult to ascertain why. Was it the design? Was it the construction? Was it poor material quality? This is usually why when this happens the architect sues the structural engineer and general contractor, the structural engineer sues the contractor, architect, and general contractor, and the general contractor sues everyone and their applicable subs. It gets... pretty hectic.
I wouldn’t address my post either if I were you.
Aw c’mon...you’re a little excited that you got the result you wanted and didn’t have to feign concern while the left rioted, looted, and burned cities across the country...Again.
that you don’t have to ignore Maxine waters and Joe “praying for the right verdict” Biden fanning the flames...again.
I’ll tell you what: people on the wrong side of the mob will think twice about going to court in Minnesota again.
Actually, I did watch the whole trial. By law, they never had to prove intent. 2nd degree is unintential
Actually, with teleworking, being at home, I did watch every minute of the trial. Brother, all I was saying was that we just have a different opinion as to what transpired. Whatever the elements of Minny Law may have been in play, they were never contemplated by the judge overseeing. Again, just an opinion
I appreciate that this thread is only 50-60% an echo chamber with a few opinions I don’t totally agree with, but made me think about things. I appreciate everyone chiming in with less than leftists, riots, pro or anti police statements. It’s more of a civil, normal in person level of conversation
I do apologize, I did not mean to insinuate that since you did not watch all of it, that you don't understand the whole case. I poorly tried to state that it was a very, very long trial with many witnesses. A lot to digest and easy to miss something important.
As to the second degree murder, yes subdivision two does not require intent but does require a felony offense for which the prosecution never presented anything as to how Chauvin committed a felony offense. So that leaves the intent in the first subdivision. Which doesn't apply either.
As you said, we'll just agree to disagree.
